Petitioners sought quashing of FIRs u/s 498A, 406, 34 IPC and s. 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Court found divorce by mutual consent and full settlement of claims. Petitions quashed.
Quashing of FIR No. 21/2016 and proceedings pursuant thereto.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~3
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Piyush Singhal, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, ASC with SI Samrat Khatiyan, ASI Rakesh, PS Harsh Vihar. Mr. Arvind, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 04.05.2018
Crl.M.A. No. 5272/2018 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(CRL) 850/2018
By the present petition the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 21/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at PS Harsh Vihar, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.
Learned proxy counsel for learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on instructions submits that in the above noted FIR the four W.P.(CRL) 850/2018 page 1 of 3
petitioners are the only accused and the respondent No.2 is the only complainant/ victim.
Respondent No. 2 who is present in Court and is identified by the learned counsel and Investigating Officer states that she has settled the matter with the petitioners vide the Compromise Deed dated 24th April, 2016 copy whereof is at pages 52 to 53 of the paper book. In terms of the settlement marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2/complainant has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. As full and final settlement of all the claims, that is, maintenance, streedhan and alimony etc. of the Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner No.1 has to pay a sum of ₹13,50,000/- to respondent No.2 out of which she has already received a sum of ₹10,00,000/- and the balance amount of ₹3,50,000/- has been received by her today in Court vide Demand Draft No. 502427 drawn on ICICI Bank. She further states that she has no claim whatsoever remaining against the petitioners. In terms of the settlement she does not want to pursue the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto and will abide by the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties.
Petitioners who are present in Court and are identified by the learned counsel affirm the statement of respondent No.2 and undertake to abide by the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties. They further states that vehicle has already been transferred to petitioner No. 1.
In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences of their own free will, volition and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, rather the W.P.(CRL) 850/2018 page 2 of 3
same would create further acrimony between them, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.
Consequently, FIR No. 21/2016 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at PS Harsh Vihar, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.
Parties have signed this order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.
Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
MAY 04, 2018 ‘yo’
page 3 of 3
W.P.(CRL) 850/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether FIRs u/s 498A, 406, 34 IPC and s. 4 Dowry Prohibition Act can be quashed upon settlement after divorce.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravi Raghav & Ors
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Ashish Aggarwal
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
